2013 First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Modelling & Simulation
Ultrasonic and Infrared Sensors Performance
in a Wireless Obstacle Detection System
Baharuddin Mustapha1, Aladin Zayegh1, Rezaul K. Begg2
1
College of Engineering & Science, Victoria University, Australia.
2
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL) and
College of Sport and Exercise Science (SES), Victoria University, Australia.
(baharuddin.mustapha@live.vu.edu.au,aladin.zayegh@vu.edu.au,rezaul.begg@vu.edu.au)
Abstract – Ultrasonic (US) and infrared (IR) sensors are
broadly used in mobile applications for distance measurements.
In this project, an obstacle detection system is built based on
these two types of sensors. The system is intended for use by the
elderly and people with vision impairment. The prototype
developed has been tested to detect obstacles and shows
accuracies of 95% to 99% for distance measurements if the
sensor circuits are calibrated properly and their output
linearized. The system also demonstrates good detection for
different obstacle materials (e.g., wood, plastic, mirror,
plywood and concretes) and colors. The minimum size of an
obstacle that the system can detect is 5 cm x 5 cm.
Keywords– obstacle detection system, ultrasonic
sensors, infrared sensor
I. INTRODUCTION
Ultrasonic (US) and infrared (IR) sensors are frequently
used for mid-range distance measurements. Typical
applications of these sensors include navigation systems
(human, mobile robot and vehicles) as obstacle avoidance,
distance measurement, counting devices (e.g., wait watcher,
product assembly), surveillance system, object detection,
edge detection and military applications [1-3]. Robustness,
lightweight, inexpensive and fast response time makes these
sensors suitable to be used in the development of navigation
aids.
In addition, the ability to gather information about the
scene of action, mapping and localization, make the
ultrasonic sensor suitable in detecting the obstacles [4].
Furthermore, a ultrasonic sensor can detect all types of
obstacle (e.g., metal, wooden based object, concrete wall,
plastics, rubber based product, transparent object, etc.) and it
is not affected by poor lighting condition [5].
However, the velocity of ultrasonic wave travel in air is
affected by environmental parameters such as temperature,
humidity and appearance of ambient noise. Nevertheless, US
sensors have limitations due to their wide beam-width and
sensitivity to the mirror-like surfaces [6]. Because of having
the properties of a mirror, only reflecting objects that are
almost normal to the sensor acoustic axis may be accurately
detected [7]. Alternatively, infrared sensors can be used in
obstacle detection because of their high resolution, low cost
and faster response times compared to ultrasonic sensors [8].
However, these sensors have non-linear characteristics and
978-1-4799-3251-1/13 $31.00 © 2013 IEEE 433
439
487
DOI 10.1109/AIMS.2013.89
they depend on the reflectance properties of the object
surfaces. Therefore, knowledge of the surface properties
must be known beforehand. In other words, the nature in
which a surface reflects and absorbs infrared energy is
needed to interpret the sensor output as distance measure [9].
The distance estimation could be obtained by using Phong
Illumination model [10].
The time of flight ( method is a preferred choice for
distance measurements when using contact-less sensor (US
and IR). In distance measurement technique, is refers to
the time it takes for a pulse of energy to travel from its
transmitter to an observed object and back to the receiver.
The energy of transmission might come from several sources
such as ultrasonic, light or radio. The distance is determined
by multiplying the velocity of the received energy pulse by
the time required to travel the distance [11].
The US and IR sensors are utilized in this work to create a
complementary system that is able to give reliable distance
measurement [12]. They can be used together where the
advantages of one compensate for the disadvantages of the
other. This paper describes an obstacle detection system
using US & IR sensors. The paper structured as follows:
Section II highlights the selection criteria of sensor, and
section III describe the structure and methodologies used for
each sensor. Section IV demonstrates the results and
discussion where the conclusion and recommendations are
specified in section V.
II. SELECTION CRITERIA OF SENSORS
Sensor selection is a crucial activity to be considered in
any system design, as it will make a great impact on the
process of the system performance during its entire lifetime
and could even has consequences related to the quality of the
product. The ultrasonic (Maxbotics LV EZ1) and infrared
(Sharp GP2Y0A02YK0F) sensors were chosen in this
research because of their high resolution, robustness,
lightweight and low cost. The use of these sensors also
provides a better cost-performance ratio compared to other
sophisticated imaging systems, such as the ones based on
stereo vision camera, GPS or laser scanning. Table 1
summarizes some technical specifications of the sensors
used in this research [13-14]. In this research the size and
weight of the sensors and their interfaces to a
microcontroller are of paramount importance, because the receiver part consists of RF wireless Rx modules 433 MHz,
sensors will be installed on the front of the shoes of the user. microcontroller and alarming units (e.g., buzzer, vibrator and
audio module).
TABLE 1 Technical specification of the sensors

Figures 2 and 3 show the simple interfaces required for the

connection of the US and IR sensors to the microcontroller.

Fig. 5 The prototype components

Trigonometry functions are used to determine the distance

between the user and obstacle using ultrasonic sensor;
however, triangulation and Phong Illumination model are the
popular methods to measure a distance between the user and
obstacle for infrared sensors.

Fig. 2 The connection of the US sensor to the microcontroller A. Ultrasonic measurement principle

The ultrasonic sensor radiates a pulse signal, ST to the

object and then receives a reflection signal, SR back to
sensor. The distance will be measured by calculating the
reflection time interval between the target and sensor [15].
The ultrasonic measurement technique can be illustrated in
Figure 4.

Fig. 3 The connection of the IR sensor to the microcontroller

III. SYSTEM STRUCTURE AND METHODOLOGY

The prototype of the system is shown in Figure 5. The

system can be divided into two parts, which can be
considered as transmitter and receiver. The transmitter part
contains of sensors (IR and US), conditioning circuit,
microcontroller and RF wireless Tx modules 433 MHz. The Fig. 4 Distance measurement process using ultrasonic sensor

488
440
434
B. Infrared measurement principle
This sensor is comprised of an LED and position sensitive
detector (PSD). The PSD is a silicon component that
operates on the principle of the photoelectric effect, in which
light energy is turned into electrical energy. The emitter of
the infrared sensor radiates the infrared light and when the
beam strikes an object it is reflected back towards the sensor
and into a focusing lens. The focusing lens directs the
reflected beam onto the PSD.
C. Microcontroller working principle
Microcontroller unit is the core of the wireless obstacle
(1)
A quick observation on the experimental results suggests
that the output voltage for the US sensor does not depend on
surface color and smoothness. In other word, the linear
characteristic within its usable range is applied for all the
color of obstacles.
Output voltage correspond to the distance of obstacle in different colour
 

Output voltage (v)


detection system. PIC family microcontrollers were chosen  

as a core component in the transmitter and receiver part of  
the system. The microcontroller does not have an operating 

system and simply runs the program in its memory when it is 

turned on. PIC microcontroller is a small computer on a 

single integrated circuit which stores a set of instructions. It


consists of a processor core, memory, and programmable 
    

input/output peripherals. Distance of the obstacle (cm)

PIC is an important component in the proposed system

which deals with a MicroC programming code which was Fig. 6 Measurement result for the US sensor
installed in it. The microcontroller in transmitter part played
an important role to read signals from sensors and calculate Figure 7 shows the comparison between actual value and
the distance value and convert the distance's analog value to measured value for distance measurement using ultrasonic
digital value before sends the digitized data (distance) to the sensor. The calculated values have been taken by
wireless transmitter module. considering sound travels at about 343 meters per second.
Whereas, in the receiver side, the microcontroller decodes The percentage of accuracy for the US sensor varies from
and converts the distance value to TTL level logic data, then 96.38% to 97.76%, for all color of surface obstacle. The
drive the specific alarm based on the value of the distance. calculation of the accuracy is obtained from the equation (2)
Microcontroller displays the distance value and triggers the below [17].
specific alarm (e.g. buzzer, vibrator or audio messages)
based on the user requirements. Percentage of accuracy, A(%) = 100% - d% (2)
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION where d% = percentage difference
Several colors of the obstacle have been selected and
tested accordingly. The colors of the surface of obstacle Comparison between actual value and
include white, black, red, yellow, blue and green. In this measured value for ultrasonic sensor
experiment, the measurement was conducted from 50cm to 

150 cm. 

Measured distance


 
A. Ultrasonic Sensor performance for different types of 
 
obstacle colors.  


 !
The voltage-distance characteristic obtained from US  

sensor at incident angle 90º is shown in Figure 6. The 
"

experimental results of the US sensor show that the output 


voltage of the sensor is proportional to the distance of the 
obstacle. Thus, linear curve characteristic is obtained from 
    

the measured data. The distance can be calculated from the Actual distance of the obstacle (cm)
output voltage as shown in equation (1) [16].
Fig.7 Comparison between actual value and measured value for
ultrasonic sensor.

489
441
435
 Based on these results, we observe that there is a small The amplitude of the output voltage across the IR sensor
difference between the measured distance and actual is decreased when the distance to an obstacle increased.
distance. The percentage difference is increased especially at Similar results are found when the incident angle is
longer distances of the obstacle (e.g., 130cm and 150cm). increased as shown in Figure 10. Environmental conditions
The percentage of difference can be calculated using could influence the measurement result such as sunlight,
equation (3). artificial lights, unless the external source is directly pointed
towards the sensor [1].
(3)

where,
;

Figure 8 shows the percentage difference for each surface

color of obstacle using ultrasonic sensor.

Percentage difference for each surface

colour of obstacle using ultrasonic sensor


  
% difference


Fig. 10 Data collected from a flat surface 50 cm from IR sensor at different
 angles

 

The average output voltage value of the IR sensor in

 corresponding to the distance of the obstacle is obtained

similarly with the technical datasheet produced by
 Solarbotics [14]. Because of the non-linearity of the output,

    
data linearization must be applied to determine the distance
Distance of obstacle measured. Data linearization could be done using nonlinear
curve fitting method. Using the datasheet provided by
Fig. 8 Percentage of static measurement error for US sensor Solarbotics, we used a fourth degree approximation method
to get a close fitting formula to find the distance in cm from
B. Infrared Sensor measurement based on different types of the voltage as shown in equation (4).
surface color of an obstacle.

The type of material used as the obstacle is cupboard with (4)

different types of surface color. The voltage-distance
characteristic obtained from infrared sensor is shown in where,
Figure 9. The experimental result of the IR sensor shows
nonlinear characteristic functions between sensor and the Figure 11 shows the comparison between the actual distance
obstacle at the incident angle 90º. and measured distance for the IR sensor.
Comparison between actual distance and
Output voltage correspond to the distance of obstacle in different colour measured distance for infrared sensor



 


Measured distance
Output voltage(v)

    

 
 

  
 
 
 
 



(cm)

   


  

 

     


    
Distance of the obstacle (cm)
Actual distance of the obstacle (cm)

Fig. 11 Comparison between actual distance and measured distance for

Fig. 9 Measurement result for the IR sensor every color of the surface obstacle using infrared sensor

490
442
436
 Using the same equation, it shows that the percentage Measured distance and percentage
accuracy of the IR sensor was varies from 94.7% to 99.5%. difference for different type of materials
Therefore, we can conclude that for the incident angle of 0º, using IR and US sensors
IR sensor has slightly better accuracy than US sensor. 

Measured distance(cm)

However, the percentage difference for measuring a distance 

using IR sensor is much higher especially for black and 

green colors of surface obstacle as shown in Figure 12. 
IR sensor
 % of error for IR

 US sensor
 % of error for US
Percentage of error for each surface 

colour of obstacle using infrared sensor 



  


% Error

 Types of materials

 
Fig. 13 Experimental results for different types of obstacle
 
at 50cm from the sensors.



 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS


    

Distance of obstacle
Fig. 12 Percentage difference for IR sensor
This is because of the dimensionless reflectivity coefficient;
for the black color is very low compared to others colors.
Table 3 presents the dimensionless reflectivity coefficient
for the others color.
TABLE 3 Experimental value of the dimensionless reflectivity
coefficients, for several colors of obstacle surface [18].
This paper presented the use of ultrasonic and infrared
sensors for distance measurement in the development of an
obstacle detection system for elderly and people with vision
impairment. Experimental results show that ultrasonic and
infrared sensors have different characteristics in terms of
output voltage measurements. It is clearly indicated that
ultrasonic sensor gives a linear output characteristic whereas
infrared sensor shows a nonlinear output characteristic. Both
sensors are able to detect an obstacle at the distances within
their usable range with percentage of accuracy between 95%
and 99%. The experimental result indicates that the US and
IR sensors are able to provide reliable distance
measurements even with different colors and materials of
obstacles. It has been shown that IR sensor has slightly
higher resolution than that of the US sensor, especially for
small distance measurement within their usable ranges.
Future work, the system should determine the sensor
location on the shoe, and the sensors only detect the obstacle
when the foot fully touching to the ground.

C. Ultrasonic and Infrared Sensor performance based on
difference types of surface material of an obstacle.
Measurements have been carried out for different type of
obstacle materials; e.g., solid wood wall, plastic based
product, mirror, plywood and concrete wall. Figure 13
shows the measurement results for both sensors at 0º angle
and the obstacle, which is placed 50cm away from the
sensors. These results are based on relatively large obstacles
(5cm x 5cm), and the objective is to study the effect of color
and materials of the obstacles.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. T. Win,N. Afzulpurkar,C. Punyasai and H. T. Htun,"Ultrasonic
System Approach to Obstacle Detection and Edge Detection," Sensor
& Transducers, ISSN 1726-5479, pp.56-67, 2011.
[2] B. Mustapha, A. Zayegh, R.K. Begg and A.H.A. Razak," Design and
Implementation of Wireless Obstacle Detection System for Safe
Locomotion", Proceedings of Third International Conference on
Intelligent Systems Modelling and Simulation, ISBN:978-0-7695
4668-1, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 8-10 February 2012.
[3] B. Mustapha, A. Zayegh and R.K. Begg, “Multiple sensor-based
Obstacle Detection System ," Proceedings of 4th International
Conference on Intelligent and Advanced Systems, ISBN:978-1-4577-
1966-0,Kuala Lumpur, 12-14 June 2012.
[4] D. M.Sobers, G. Chowdhary and E. N. Johnson,"Indoor Navigation
for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,"AIAA Guidance, Navigation and
Control Conference, 10-13 August 2009, Chicago, Ilinois USA.
[5] T. Mohammad, “Using Ultrasonic and Infrared Sensors for Distance
Measurement," World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, pp. 293-298, 2009.

491
443
437
[6] A.K. Shrivastava, A. Verma and S.P. Singh,"Distance Measurement
of an Object or Obstacle by Ultrasound Sensors using
P89C51RD2,"International Journal of Computer Theory and
Engineering, Vol 2, No. 1,pp. 1793-8201,February 2010.
[7] J. Majchrzak, M. Michalski and G. Wiczynski,"Distance Estimation
With a Long-Range Ultrasonic Sensor System,"IEEE Sensors Journal,
Vol 9. No. 7, pp. 767-773, July 2009.
[8] G. Benet, F. Blanes, J.E. Simo, P. Perez, “Using Infrared Sensors for
Distance Measurement in Mobile Robots,” Journal of Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, vol. 10, 2002, pp. 255-266.
[9] A. Gutowski, S. Mitchell and M. Barros,"A Sensor Grid for Person
Detection and People Counting," Department of Electrical
Engineering,Massachusetts Amherst, US, 29 November 2010.
[10] B. T. Phong., “Illumination for computer generated pictures,”
Communications of the ACM, vol. 18(6), June 1975, pp. 311-
317.for Smart Environment. vol. 75, ed: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, pp. 331-349,2010.
[11] N.F. Jansen, "Short Range Object Detection and Avoidance,"
Traineeship Report, pp. 17, November 17, 2010.
[12] M. Fodor and O. Liska,"Design and Realization Sensorial System
on Detection Obstacle," Proceedings of 8th IEEE International
Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics;
Herlany, Slovakia, January 28-30, 2010, pp. 243–245, 2010.
[13] MaxBotix Inc., “LV-MaxSonar-EZ1– High Performance Sonar
Range Finder,” Product Datasheet, July 2007.
[14] Solarbotics,"Analog Infra-Red Ranging Sensor," Sharp
GP2Y0A02YKF Sensor,Dec 6 2010.
[15] M.Ishihara, M. Shiina and S. Suzuki,"Evaluation of Method of
Measuring Distance Between Object and Walls Using Ultrasonic
Sensors," Journal of Asian Electric Vehicles, vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1207-
1211,June 2009.
[16] Cytron Technologies. Available online: http:www.cytron.com.my
[17] Y. Jang, S. Shin, J.W. Lee and S. Kim, "A Preliminary Study for
Portable Walking Distance Measurement System Using Ultrasonic
Sensor," Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference
of the IEEE EMBS, Lyon France, August 23-26, 2007, pp. 5290-
5293, 2007.
[18] A.A. Fisal,"The Near Infrared Reflective Materials Surfaces:
Dimensions and Angles,"Journal of University of Anbar for Pure
Science, Vol. 3, no. 2, 2009.

492
444
438